Redesign, Don't Bypass, School Districts

Like heart surgeons confronting a clogged artery, many education
reformers have concluded that the best way to deal with an obstreperous
bureaucracy is to bypass it altogether. Frustrated by what they see as
inflexibility and meddlesome micromanagement, these reformers have
elected to focus their efforts on schools themselves. The decision by
funders like the RJR Nabisco and Annenberg foundations to devote funds
directly to schools, rather than districts, is one example of this
phenomenon. The growing interest in charter schools is another.

All of these efforts are based on the belief that the current
structure impedes learning by burdening schools with regulations that
restrict innovation. Since the key to education is teaching and
learning, the reformers say, the best way to improve teaching and
learning is to strip away as many impediments as possible and give
those people closest to the students--teachers and principals--the
autonomy they need to make whatever changes they deem appropriate for
their students.

This idea is laudable, but the remedies do not answer the real need:
to raise the level of achievement for all students. For one thing, the
remedies rest on the shaky assumption that simply unleashing the
creative power of teachers and principals will enhance the educational
achievement of young people. It may, but there is no assurance that it
will. Perhaps more importantly, the proposed remedies do nothing at all
for the students in schools not favored by freedom or additional
foundation funds.

There is another way. Why not redesign school districts so that they
no longer play a dysfunctional role but instead support and indeed
enhance reform so that all students benefit?

This is not a flight of fancy. A number of U.S. districts are
seriously interested in moving in this direction. And one Canadian
neighbor already has: Edmonton, Alberta. The experience in Edmonton
shows American reformers that such a restructuring is not only
possible, but also that it works.

Simply put, the Edmonton reform is based on the idea that the
district's role is to set standards for student learning and to support
schools in their efforts to bring all students up to the standards. But
schools have the authority to do whatever they consider necessary to
enable students to meet the standards, and they are accountable for
doing so. The key to the entire system is results. The district uses a
variety of methods to determine how well everyone is performing, and
the purpose of every decision is to improve that performance.

Of course, the Edmonton model will not likely fit every district in
this country. Nevertheless, Edmonton has a lot in common with many
large districts in the United States--it is a large (80,000-pupil,
200-school) urban district with a diverse student body--and the
experience there does suggest what the elements of a restructured
school district might be. Among these elements are:

Districtwide high standards for student performance. One of the
potential pitfalls of the school-level reforms, such as charter
schools, is the fact that they allow individual schools to determine
what they expect students to achieve. The result, if current practice
is any guide, is likely to be wildly uneven, with some schools
expecting a great deal of students and others expecting considerably
less.

If we really believe that all students can learn at high levels,
as the cliche‚ goes, we should expect all students to perform at
high levels. A common set of standards reflects that expectation. An
assessment system faithful to the standards is essential to know if
students are meeting these expectations.

In Edmonton, the district has set learning goals for students for
each year of schooling in core subjects, and in the third, sixth, and
ninth years administers exams to measure student performance against
the goals. The assessment helps improve instruction by providing
benchmarks of high performance as well as information to teachers on
student strengths and weaknesses.

A substantial shift in authority to the school level. Many reform
efforts have employed the rhetoric of school-based decisionmaking
while maintaining much of the actual authority at the central
level. As a result, the authority schools in fact exert is quite
limited.

Edmonton has put its money where its mouth is: Eighty-five
percent of the district's funds go directly to schools for them to
use as they see fit. Moreover, the funds are distributed in a lump
sum, not in separate program accounts, so schools do not feel
constrained to use a certain amount only for a certain purpose.
Schools make up their own budgets and develop their own programs to
achieve results. Schools can also raise funds independently; one
school contracted with the Alberta Ballet Company to lease space in
its building and provide master-level dance instruction.

The autonomy Edmonton schools enjoy extends to their use of
district central services. Unlike in other districts, where the
central office continues to serve as the sole provider of
curriculum support, professional development, and the like,
Edmonton schools can purchase such services from wherever they
choose, either the central office or elsewhere. As a result, the
services the central office provides are what those schools want
and need.

Central-office support for schools. Contrary to the rhetoric of
many reformers, turning schools loose may not be enough to insure
that they perform well. Many schools need assistance, and
district offices are well-positioned to provide the kind of
support schools want.

In Edmonton, the central-office supports schools by recasting
the role of associate superintendents. Unlike in many districts,
where associate superintendents serve as another layer of
bureaucracy making sure that schools follow district rules, the
associates in Edmonton see themselves as "school coaches,"
responsible for helping schools develop plans for improvement and
carry through with them. Each associate superintendent serves
about 25 to 30 schools, and the regions are mixed geographically
to insure that all regions of the district are served
equally.

Providing such support requires a change in culture, not just
a change in a job description. So Edmonton has redefined the
qualifications for the position. In the past, when associate
superintendencies were positions of control, the post was
generally a way station for principals who wanted to move into
higher levels of administration. Now, though, the job is no
longer a step on a career path. It is instead an opportunity for
innovative principals to step out of their posts temporarily and
help a group of peers.

Accountability for results. The piece that ties the entire
system together is accountability. In a system based on
results, schools need to be responsible for producing
results--and answerable for the results they produce. And
teachers and principals are willing to be accountable--if they
have the authority to exercise their professional judgments.

An accountability system has clear rules that are applied
consistently; high-quality information on performance; and a
continual cycle of evaluation and improvement. In Edmonton, the
centerpiece of the system is information. The district has
established an office of student information and monitoring,
which not only collects and analyzes data on student
achievement but also conducts and analyzes extensive surveys to
gauge "customer satisfaction" in the system. Teachers,
principals, central-office staff members, and the school board
use this information to make informed decisions about how to
improve performance.

The system has strong support. Since its inception, few
teachers have filed grievances and few have been dismissed for
cause. Teachers and administrators know that the goal is
improving results, not complying with rules.

Putting these four elements--standards, local-school
autonomy, central support, and accountability--into place is
not an easy task. It demands changing the way school systems
have done business for generations. Above all, it demands a new
way of thinking.

To help districts move along this path, the National Center
on Education and the Economy has formed a National Academy for
Restructuring School Districts, which held its first meeting
last monthck.s, appropriately, in Edmonton. The academy
consists of superintendents, central-office employees, and
teachers' union officials from the districts that are part of
the National Alliance for Restructuring Education (Pittsburgh,
San Diego, and Rochester and White Plains, N.Y., as well as
districts in Arkansas, Kentucky, Vermont, and Washington
State). It will examine promising practices across North
America and help develop a "tool kit" of models, guides, and
other resources to assist districts in restructuring. One
resource the center can provide is the expertise of the
director of its high-performance-management program: Michael
Strembitsky, who was the superintendent of schools in Edmonton
for 22 years.

As he often says, organization is a means to an end, not an
end in itself. People, not organizations, produce results. But
organizations can make it possible for people to produce their
best efforts. Before we maneuver to bypass organizations like
school districts and boards, let's think of a way that they can
help people produce what we all want, better results for our
children.

Robert Rothman is a senior associate at the National Alliance (or Restructuring Education,
based in Washington. He is the author of Measuring Up: Standards, Assessment,
and school Reform, published last month by Jossey·Bass Publishers, and is a former associate editor o(Education Week.

Vol. 14, Issue 34, Pages 33-34

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.